Abstract
Fluvial ecosystems are essential for life on Earth. Despite this recognition and the growing implementation of restoration programs, measures aimed at halting riverine biodiversity’s decline have had limited success, so far. The implementation of protected areas has been the cornerstone of terrestrial and marine conservation. However, this strategy has only been seldomly applied to the protection of fluvial ecosystems and there is still no clear evidence of its effectiveness. We reviewed existing literature in scientific journals and reports from conservation agencies and analysed existing protection policies dedicated to rivers as well as several case studies throughout the world. Our main aim is to understand the potential advantages and drawbacks of dedicated fluvial protected areas, comparing to terrestrial protected areas and even to the total absence of protection. We also delved in the process of implementing fluvial protected areas, namely in what concerns relevant spatial scales, conservation priorities, stakeholders’ involvement and mitigation measures to potential threats. In total 173 references were retained after a comprehensive search on Google Scholar, SpringerLink, Scopus and ResearchGate. These studies revealed that, despite contradictory results, terrestrial protected areas provide some degree of protection to riverine ecosystems contained within their borders, namely through increased abundances and species richness of some specific groups. Comparatively, however, dedicated fluvial protected areas, designed to accommodate the uniqueness of these systems, hold a much higher potential. Yet, data regarding its effectiveness is still scarce, mainly due to the lack of general guidelines and resources to evaluate performance following establishment, which prevents stronger conclusions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The environmental significance of human activities is so profound that we are presently in a distinct geological period, coined as the Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000) and typified by levels of global extinction several hundred times greater than expected (Olson et al. 2002; Dirzo and Raven 2003). Natural resources are progressively managed to maximize material flows to keep up with the increasing human demands, degrading the global biodiversity on which we all depend (Díaz et al. 2019). Global freshwater biodiversity has registered an average decrease of 83%, between 1970 and 2018 according to the freshwater living planet index (LPI) and based on data for 6617 monitored populations of 1398 freshwater species (WWF 2022). Riverine ecosystems, in particular, due to their topographical position and hydrological connections, are among the most endangered ones (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Reid et al. 2019). The main threats that impend over these ecosystems typically act simultaneously and include loss of natural flows and connectivity changes, water pollution, land use modifications (including of riparian corridors), overexploitation, invasion of non-native species (NNS), habitat loss and climate change (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Pittock et al. 2018; Reid et al. 2019; Feio et al. 2022a). Thus, considering rivers are habitat to an astonishing diversity of lifeforms, providing at the same time billions of people with services that include provision of clean drinking water and energy, climate regulation, navigation and nutrient cycling (Moir et al. 2016), their preservation is of utmost urgency (Darwall et al. 2011; Abell et al. 2017; Dudgeon 2019). However, most actions developed to safeguard riverine biodiversity have proved inadequate and still no global framework exists to guide policy responses in proportion with the scale and urgency of the situation (Harrison et al. 2018). Additionally, there is still a generalized bias of conservation research towards terrestrial systems (Donaldson et al. 2016; Di Marco et al. 2017).
There are several mechanisms available for the preservation of fluvial environments, including community conservation of habitats for flagship, keystone or culturally important species, formal protected areas (PA), land use planning, habitat restoration programs (UN 2018), implementation of environmental flows (e-flows), construction of fish ways and removal of obsolete dams (Reid et al. 2019).
Here, we focus specifically on the implementation of dedicated Fluvial Protected Areas (FPA).
The designation of PA has been the cornerstone of terrestrial, and more recently, marine conservation efforts (Polunin 2001). Numerous global commitments have urged for the creation of PA encompassing all major ecosystems, namely the World Commission on Environment and Development’s recommendation that at least 8% of the world’s terrestrial and freshwater areas be set aside in PA networks (Brundtland 1987) and the 16th Recommendation of the IVth World Parks Congress (Caracas), urging governments to ensure PA covered a minimum of 10% of each biome by the year 2000 (IUCN 1993). Also targeting for PA systems is Recommendation 19.38 of the 19th Session of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) General Assembly (Buenos Aires) (IUCN 1994). In 2010 the 10th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UN CBD) approved 20 Biodiversity Targets, among which was ‘The conservation of at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas’ (UN 2010). Similarly, in 2014 the IUCN issued a call for specific focus on the coverage and management of freshwater ecosystems (IUCN 2014) and in 2020, one of the World Conservation Congress resolutions (WCC-2020-Res-008) recommended that all states establish PA representative of all freshwater ecosystems (IUCN 2020). More recently, in 2022, the 15th Conference of Parties to the UN CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which includes the protection and conservation, through an effective system of PA and other area-based conservation measures, of at least 30% of the world’s lands, inland waters, coastal areas and oceans (UN 2022). The scientific community has also been urging for increased efforts towards the establishment of dedicated PA (e.g., Moyle and Yoshiyama 1994; Li et al. 1995; Kingsford and Nevill 2005; Allan et al. 2005; Suski and Cooke 2007; Abell et al. 2008; Humphries and Winemiller 2009; Williams et al. 2011; Miranda and Pino-del-Carpio 2016; Azevedo-Santos et al. 2018; Feio et al. 2022a).
The main objectives of this study are to (i) assess the condition of riverine ecosystems within non dedicated PA, (ii) explore the existing knowledge on the benefits of FPA, (iii) look into successes and failures regarding FPA’s implementation process (including several case studies) and (iv) provide recommendations towards the successful implementation and management of FPA.
Methods
An extensive literature search was conducted on the electronic databases of Google Scholar, Scopus, ResearchGate and SpringerLink to retrieve worldwide publications supporting the main goals of this study. Our screening process searched for scientific literature in English containing in the title and/or abstract, for scientific papers, and within title and/or introduction for scientific reports, the following keywords: ‘freshwater ecosystems’, ‘riverine ecosystems’, ‘fluvial ecosystems’, ‘protected areas’, ‘protection areas’, ‘reserves’, ‘rivers’, isolated or combined with each other. No time limits were set for the search. The adopted criteria limited the selection to studies that had been published in international journals with strict peer-review processes, in what concerns scientific papers and to renowned international conservation organizations as well as national or local organizations responsible for the management and implementation of specific FPA, in what concerns scientific reports. Regarding the case studies and considering there aren’t many FPA worldwide, our search criteria limited the selection to those with reported outcomes (e.g., benefits, limitations and constraints) and representative of different tipologies of FPA. The resulting list of documents was organized into three distinct categories: (i) Fluvial ecosystems within non dedicated PA; (ii) Fluvial Protected Areas—Benefits, constraints, and case studies and (iii) FPA implementation and management. The documents with duplicated information or those that, after a detailed analysis, didn’t prove relevant for the goals of the study were set aside.
Results and discussion
The bibliographic search resulted in 145 papers and 28 scientific reports, published between 1991 and 2023, with the following distribution: 35 publications on fluvial ecosystems within non dedicated PA; 43 publications on fluvial protected areas—benefits, constraints and case studies, and 95 publications on FPA implementation and management.
Fluvial ecosystems within non dedicated protected areas
Overall, the retrieved publications show that terrestrial PA provide some degree of protection towards the freshwater ecosystems contained within their limits. Considering most countries are still lacking strategic government directions aimed at the protection of fluvial ecosystems, the most common situation is their inclusion inside non dedicated PA (Tickner et al. 2020), where they are managed only as a necessary resource for preserving terrestrial biodiversity (Nel et al. 2007). Despite mixed results, most of the studies developed to assess if terrestrial PA provide some protection to fluvial ecosystems, when compared to completely unprotected areas, revealed positive effects (Fig. 1). These studies focused mainly on fish and macroinvertebrates.
These divergent results can be attributed to variables such as the legal dispositions and geographical placement of the PA analyzed and/or to different experimental designs/methodological approaches. Among the studies with positive findings are those of Baird and Flaherty 2005 (LAO PDR), Rodríguez-Olarte et al. 2006 (Venezuela), Nel et al. 2007 (South Africa), Paz et al. 2008 (Brazil), Atkore et al. 2011 (Himalaya), Abraham and Kelkar 2012 (India), Sarkar et al. 2013 (India), Gupta et al. 2015 (India), Kwik and Yeo 2015 (Singapore), Miranda and Pino-del-Carpio 2016 (Spain), Maceda-Veiga et al. 2017 (Spain), Restello et al. 2020 (Brazil) and Majdi et al. 2022 (South Africa). By opposition, the studies of Mancini et al. 2005 (Italy), Chessman 2013 (Australia), Nogueira et al. 2021 (Portugal) and Mollmann et al. 2022 (Brazil) found no protective effect towards the studied fluvial ecosystems. However, despite the positive findings, several studies have identified factors that constraint the effect of these PA in the protection of rivers (e.g., absence of whole catchment approach, limited connectivity, absence of threat control beyond PA boundaries, low surrogacy level of terrestrial taxa towards fluvial biodiversity; Darwall et al. 2011; Acreman et al. 2019; Leal et al. 2020; Nogueira et al. 2021). As a consequence, several authors have pointed out the limited effectiveness of these PA in what concerns the protection of riverine biodiversity (e.g., Abellán et al. 2007; Nel et al. 2007; Herbert et al. 2010; Dorji et al. 2020; Dias-Silva et al. 2021; Yousefi et al. 2022; Miyahira et al. 2023). Thus, there continues to be an urgent need to separate policies and methodologies to address PA design, designation, and management, specific to the conservation of fluvial species and ecosystems, which are too often lumped in with terrestrial habitats or marine environments (Abell et al. 2007; Saunders et al. 2002; van Rees et al. 2020).
Fluvial protected areas—benefits, constraints and case studies
Despite the ample array of policy options available within the scope of statutory protection, namely wilderness areas, national parks, river designations, community-based reserves, world heritage areas (Kingsford et al. 2016), we found that, to date the systematic implementation of fluvial reserves has been scarce (Dudgeon 2000; Saunders et al. 2002; Abell et al. 2007; Nel et al. 2009; Hermoso et al. 2016). This is justified by (i) the level of complexity of these ecosystems (Moilanen et al. 2008); (ii) the fact that many rivers and associated catchments are private, making it difficult to impose management plans (Susky and Cooke 2007); (iii) the required cooperation between multiple stakeholder groups, potentially involving multiple jurisdictions or even countries (Filipe et al. 2004); and finally, (iv) the fact that the terminology has not yet been standardized, which potentially limits the dissemination of successful examples (Susky and Cooke 2007). There are, however, exceptions (e.g., USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Spain, France, New Zealand, Thailand, Norway). Table 1 summarizes the ecological benefits reported, when available, as well as identified constraints associated with each case study.
Wild and scenic rivers (USA)
This was the first ever created national river conservation system. It was officially established by the Wild and Scenic River Act 1968 (WSRA) and designed to protect and enhance the free-flowing nature, water quality and outstandingly remarkable values (e.g., recreation, scenic, fish, wildlife, culture, geologic, historic and other similar values) of rivers across USA territory (Perry 2017). Rothlisberger et al. (2017) consider that the designation of a river is the riverine equivalent of creating a terrestrial PA. The Wild and Scenic River (WSR) system currently protects over 21,000 km of rivers, through 226 designations (Perry 2017, 2021), in 40 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Moir et al. 2016). The rivers can be designated according to their wild, scenic and/or recreational values (Moir et al. 2016) and to secure their protection a Comprehensive River Management Plan is prepared for each designated river (Major et al. 2020). By securing their free-flowing nature, the designation of WSR enables natural processes to occur unimpeded (Rothlisberger et al. 2017), creating a physical template of habitats essential to native species (Thurow 2015) and contributes to an increased resilience towards climate change (Haak and Williams 2012). On the other hand, the designation usually promotes community driven projects (e.g., removal of obsolete dams, restoration of riparian buffers) aimed at the improvement and/or preservation of the overall condition of the designated river. Unfortunately, as McGarvey et al. (2021) highlight, proof that river designation itself has a measurable effect on instream biota and ecosystem health is not readily available. In fact, these authors developed one of the few studies available on the subject, focused on Virginia Scenic Rivers Programme, similar in every respect to the WSR system. Besides the findings provided by the aforementioned study, other ecological benefits and constraints associated with this designation system were found scattered throughout different conservation agencies’ reports.
Canadian heritage river system
The Canadian heritage river system (CHRS) was established in 1984 to protect Canada’s outstanding rivers via a non-statutory agreement between Federal, State, and Territory governments (Nevill and Phillips 2004). It’s a voluntary, community driven system that neither prohibits nor mandates activities. Each designated river has a management plan to protect its outstanding values (Nevill and Phillips 2004) and decadal monitoring reports evaluate if these values are maintained, otherwise a river may be de-designated. Rivers designated for natural values, which represent the majority, may not be impounded or have impoundments outside their boundaries (Canadian Heritage Rivers Board 2002). There are 41 designated rivers spanning over 11,000 km across Canada (Nevill and Phillips 2004). Similarly to the WSR (USA), data attesting the benefits provided by the designation towards aquatic communities are scarce.
Kakadu national park (Australia)
Kakadu National Park (KNP), in northern Australia, was declared between 1979 and 1991 to protect the entire catchment of a large floodplain river (Parks Australia 2016). The park encompasses almost all of the catchment of the South Alligator River, the entire catchment of the smaller West Alligator, and significant parts of the Wildman River and East Alligator River catchments (Adams et al. 2015). KNP is listed as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention and was also inscribed in the World Heritage List in 1981, under both cultural and natural criteria (BMT WBM 2010). The park covers an area of 19,816 km2 and comprises a highly dynamic and productive fluvial component, connected all the way from headwaters to mouth (Parks Australia 2016). Following declaration, potentially pernicious activities were restricted, and a management plan was established (Adams et al. 2015), providing a framework for decision-making and resource allocation (Parks Australia 2016). However, according to Parr et al. (2009), this plan lacks precision and measurable targets, making it hard to assess the extent of management success in achieving biodiversity objectives. In fact, the management’s impact has never been consistently evaluated (Adams et al. 2015) and there has been no long term, systematic monitoring of threatened plant or animal species, with the exception of two species of marine turtles (Parr et al. 2009).
Community-based fish reserves (Thailand)
To counteract the effects of over-fishing, several southeast Asia local communities (e.g., Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, India), have designated hundreds of no-fishing riverine reserves (Loury and Ainsley 2020). These reserves are usually surrounded by intensely fished areas (McCann et al. 2016). Thus, to secure a tight surveillance and to minimize travel distances, the reserves’ boundaries usually coincide with the most upstream and downstream homes in the village, and penalties, whether monetary or non-monetary, are applied to the transgressors (Koning et al. 2020). Koning et al. (2020) assessed the effectiveness of one of those reserves, within the Salween River basin (northern Thailand), testing the fish communities’ response. These authors found that despite their small size (0.2 to 2.2 ha), these grassroot reserves benefited fish populations, which shows that empowering communities to manage local resources can have better results than top-down management (Koning et al. 2020).
Blanice river nature reserve (Czechia)
In 1989, the Blanice River nature reserve (63 km2), in Czechia, was designated to protect the upper river network of the Blanice River against anthropogenic eutrophication and to restore habitat conditions for sensitive riverine species, in particular the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) (Fraindová et al. 2022). Between 1990 and 1992, eradication of mineral fertilization, liming and pesticide application, as well as land use transition from croplands to traditional grasslands, produced a semi-natural landscape dominated by meadows and forests (Staponites et al. 2022). Staponites et al. (2022) assessed the impact of management practices adopted after designation on the water quality, comparing data before 1992 and after 2000, and found measurable improvements in surface water quality.
National freshwater ecosystem priority areas (South Africa)
Another example, more of a priorization tool than an attribution of protected status, is the South African National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) project (2008–2011), that came into place due to the high levels of threat reported for this country’s freshwaters (Nel et al. 2011b). Its aim was to identify freshwater ecosystem priority areas (FEPA) using a range of criteria dealing with the maintenance of key ecological processes and conservation of ecosystem types and species associated with rivers, wetlands and estuaries (Driver et al. 2011). Another goal of this project was to develop a basis to enable effective implementation of protection measures towards the identified FEPAs, including free flowing rivers. Guidelines were defined for each of the four different management units identified (wetland FEPAs, river FEPAs, sub‐quaternary catchments associated with river FEPAs and upstream management areas), linking specific land use practices and activities to changes in water quality, changes in water quantity and changes in habitat and biota (Driver et al. 2011). The identified FEPA can be used both in proactive planning processes (e.g., catchment‐wide planning processes, water use regulation, land use regulation) and in reactive decision‐making processes (Driver et al. 2011).
The publications selected in our study indicated also that, although FPA’s main goal is conservation, they also contribute to an ample array of ecosystem services (e.g., support to essential natural processes, maintenance of freshwater fish populations and provision of other food sources, groundwater recharge, provision of raw materials, water purification, research and education, recreation, and disaster risk reduction; Balmford et al. 2015; Dudley et al. 2018; Feio et al. 2022b). In addition, FPA contribute to protect terrestrial species depending on riverine ecosystems (e.g., refuges in degraded landscapes or at times of drought, corridors for migration and dispersal; van Rees et al. 2020). In fact, as emphasized by Hermoso et al. (2012), FPA offer interesting opportunities for terrestrial conservation and vice versa. Therefore, targeting both realms simultaneously is recommended, generating higher benefits than those achieved by individual terrestrial and fluvial PA (Alvarez-Romero et al. 2011; Hermoso et al. 2012).
Fluvial protected areas implementation and management
Our search highlighted the most relevant factors for the successful implementation and management of FPA refered in publications, namely the definition of conservation priorities, stakeholder’s engagement and minimization of potential threats (e.g., land use disturbances, flow alterations, introduction of NNS and climate changes).
Defining conservation priorities
The first step in the implementation of any kind of PA is the definition of priorities (Margules et al. 2002; Hermoso et al. 2016). We identified two major approaches to systematic reserve design, based either on a scoring procedure or on the concept of complementarity. The former ranks sites, independently from each other, in order of priority according to defined criteria (e.g., species richness, rarity or vulnerability) (Boon 2000; Abellán et al. 2005). On the other hand, methods based on complementarity, such as systematic conservation planning (SCP), are more recent and have received growing interest (e.g., Margules and Pressey 2000; Margules and Sarkar 2007; Hermoso et al. 2012) by providing, in a context of limited options and resources, a quantitative method for conservation prioritization using observed or modelled surrogate distributions (Pressey et al. 1993). SCP can be defined as “a structured stepwise approach to mapping conservation area networks, with feedback, revision and reiteration, where needed, at any stage” (Margules and Sarkar 2007). According to Frank and Sarkar (2010), the SCP frameworks usually include several sequential steps (Fig. 2).
Nevill and Phillips (2004) advocate that these sequential steps could be used to form the basis of a strategy aimed at establishing representative FPA in a given planning region (PR). In fact, we identified several studies that have already used this approach to put forward proposals for the development of FPA, namely in Australia (e.g., Linke et al. 2007) and France (e.g., Decker et al. 2017).
Although most SCP approaches have been originally developed within terrestrial and marine realms, several adaptations for riverine systems, including methods to incorporate longitudinal, lateral, vertical, and temporal connectivities, have been made (Moilanen et al. 2008; Hermoso et al. 2012).
The results arising from this priority analysis are aimed to inform the management and decision‐making processes governing environmental conservation (Wilson et al. 2009).
Once established, PA have the potential, if correctly managed, to provide long-term safety to associated biota, maintaining natural processes and viable populations, while minimizing potential threats (Margules and Pressey 2000; Margules et al. 2002). The regular performance assessment of management responses through biophysical, governance and socio‐economic indicators (Pomeroy et al. 2005) should be a standard part of PA planning and funding (Adams et al. 2015). For instance, Xie et al. (2019) detected that FPA established in specific sections of Yangtze river (China) were performing poorly towards the protection of targeted fish species, which indicated the need for further optimizations. There is no doubt about FPA’s potential to effectively protect populations and habitats, however, the impacts of its management actions have rarely been evaluated (Adams et al. 2015), as demonstrated by some of the case studies aforementioned. Important shortcomings are the limited data availability (Juffe-Bignoli et al. 2014), limited resources, high levels of natural variability and spatio-temporal connectivity (Adams et al. 2015) and also to the lack of general guidelines for assessing FPA following establishment (Loury and Ainsley 2020). The IUCN Greenlist initiative was developed, among other things, to bridge this gap, functioning as a global certification programme, promoting PA that are effectively managed and that demonstrate measurable conservation outcomes (IUCN and WCPA 2017). This strategy can also be applied to FPA.
Public and stakeholder intervention
Our search on the engagement of stakeholders in the protection of rivers highlighted the need to involve all sectors in an integrated way, to avoid colliding interests (Darwall et al. 2014) and prevent devastating effects. Indeed, in the past, the establishment of nature reserves and national parks led to the displacement of many indigenous populations justified with the preservation of wilderness, namely in the USA and South Africa (Spence 1999). Nonetheless, this paradigm has changed, and presently the way of life and the aspirations of resident populations are increasingly considered (Dudley and Parish 2006). To reach a generalized consensus, conservation planners need to implement a stakeholder involvement framework based on a flexible, transparent, participative approach and also on principles of prior informed consent and shared responsibilities, from the onset of the conservation planning exercise (Linke et al. 2011; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013; Mauerhofer et al. 2015). As Darwall et al. (2014) point out, unless all sectors and stakeholders work together in an integrated way, the interests of one sector will inevitably collide with those of another. Besides public participation in decision making, several authors (e.g., Garcia-Llorente et al. 2016; Feio et al. 2022b) underscore that it’s equally important to endorse the values of nature and biodiversity across all sectors of society, increasing ecosystem knowledge, improving social cohesion, potentiating nature preservation, and advocating the vital services provided by healthy ecosystems.
Minimizing threats within fluvial protected areas
Different strategies have been presented to eliminate or minimize deleterious impacts, not only within FPA, but also in terrestrial PA fortuitously encompassing fluvial ecosystems, from which it’s still possible to derive benefits, according to various studies analysed (e.g., Nel et al. 2007; Herbert et al. 2010). In fact, authors like Dudley and Stolton (2008), Nel et al. (2009), Thieme et al. (2012) and Abell et al. (2017) have put forward a few changes to terrestrial PA that, adding to the minimizing actions addressed below, would improve their preservation benefits for fluvial ecosystems. Some of these changes include (i) restoring longitudinal and lateral connectivity, (ii) avoiding the use of rivers as boundaries, (iii) avoiding the development of visitor infrastructures near priority fluvial ecosystems, (iv) managing aquatic recreational activities, (v) restoring riparian buffers, (vi) managing processes and threats internal and external to the boundaries of the PA, (vii) expanding the existing PA to encompass unprotected headwaters, natural large-scale catchment processes, biodiversity hotspots, functional processes and connectivity pathways, (viii) assuring that the PA management plans address and monitor, regularly, riverine conservation objectives and (ix) prioritizing resources for those PA that include large portions of catchments and/or that contain populations of rare, endemic or threatened species. Acreman et al. (2019) strongly recommends that more attention is given to such opportunities, especially where the implementation of dedicated FPA is unlikely or financially unfeasible. This strategy also has the additional advantage of being more politically acceptable, more cost-effective, and less disruptive to human communities than the creation of a completely new FPA (Pringle 2017).
Below we discuss the solutions found in literature regarding how FPA should be implemented and managed to deal with, and reduce the effect of, land use and flow alterations, introduction of NNS and climate change.
Land use alterations’s
Any conservation planning must acknowledge, not only that FPA will need to be part of larger protected landscapes (Nevill and Phillips 2004), but also the interconnections between multiple stressors and between the different riverine habitats within the drainage basin (Pittock et al. 2018). Hence, several authors (e.g., Saunders et al. 2002; Dudgeon et al. 2006; Linke et al. 2007, 2008; Hermoso et al. 2013; Adams et al. 2015; Mollmann et al. 2022) consider that the ideal solution would be to select management units encompassing all relevant connections (e.g., catchments or sub-catchments). According to these authors, the integration of target fluvial areas into the basin’s management would secure habitat patchiness, connectivity pathways and associated ecological processes. Additional benefits include (i) increased cooperation across multiple agency jurisdictions, (ii) integration of public and private land management efforts, (iii) increased comprehensiveness regarding NNS control, (iv) increased climate change resilience, (v) promotion of environmentally sensitive compatible uses (Williams et al. 2011) and (vi) higher integration between fluvial and terrestrial conservation initiatives (Klein et al. 2009). However, gaining management control over large areas of land is complex, challenging and, in most cases, unfeasible (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Hermoso et al. 2016). To overcome this constraint, there are alternative approaches compatible with the underlying principle of managing entire catchments as a whole. One of those approaches involves the establishment of hierarchical frameworks (e.g., Abell et al. 2007), which contributes not only to fulfill spatial needs, but also to ensure effective protection in a more flexible way (Saunders et al. 2002). Accordingly, there is always a central core with a given fluvial feature requiring protection, surrounded by a series of sequential buffer zones, in which some human activities are allowed at varying intensities (Abell et al. 2007). Only low-impact activities are allowed in areas closer to the central core, while potentially more harmful practices are excluded or relegated to more distant areas (Saunders et al. 2002). This strategy is increasingly being accepted as an appropriate fluvial conservation framework (e.g., Linke et al. 2011; Nel et al. 2011a), not only because many biodiversity patterns, habitats and processes are shaped by a spatial and temporal hierarchy (Poff 1997; Margules and Pressey 2000), but also for being relatively easy to integrate with local community-based conservation initiatives (Saunders et al. 2002). Hermoso et al. (2016), for example, have used this method to refine conservation recommendations in the Iberian Peninsula, reducing the overall area needed to expand Natura 2000 network, in order to adequately cover fluvial conservation targets in that region.
Flow alterations
Natural flows create channel features, maintain floodplain connectivity, enable groundwater recharge, mitigate flooding (Tickner et al. 2020) and support productive fisheries and flood recession agriculture, which sustain millions of people (Moir et al. 2016). Hence, and considering riverine species have evolved life strategies in direct response to natural flows and water regimes, any man-made changes, namely through artificial in stream structures (e.g., dams, weirs, culverts, levees), lead to biodiversity losses (Bunn and Arthington 2002). These structures fragment fluvial ecosystems and disrupt movements of water, species, sediments, and nutrients (Grill et al. 2019; Rivaes et al. 2022), resulting in decreases in native species’ abundances and diversity, accompanied by proliferation of NNS (Maceda-Veiga et al. 2017). Fish are particularly affected, since their free movement for reproduction, feeding and habitat colonization is blocked, leading to potential genetic impoverishment (Hermoso et al. 2012; Branco et al. 2014). In fact, WWF’s LPI 2020 reports a 93% average decline of migratory freshwater fish in Europe since 1973 (WWF 2020). Despite these negative implications, the atribution of protection status doesn’t necessarily shield riverine ecosystems from this threat. In the Mediterranean region alone, around 2000 hydropower projects are already proposed within the boundaries of National Parks, Biosphere Reserves and other PA (Freyhof et al. 2020). At the global scale, there are around 1,200 dams within PA and more than 500 are under construction or planned for the next two decades (Kroner et al. 2019). In view of this scenario, active management through e-flows (Arthington et al. 2018), dam discharges, inter-basin transfers and groundwater extractions, gain an even bigger relevance, since they can reproduce natural discharge patterns (Poff 1997). The removal of artificial and obsolete in-stream structures is also gaining momentum and being increasingly considered a viable option for a sustainable watershed management (Bernhardt et al. 2005). The EU Biodiversity Strategy aims to return at least 25,000 km of rivers into a free-flowing status by 2030, by removing obsolete barriers (EC 2022), of which more than 7000 have already been removed (Mouchlianitis 2023). Fish passage devices also contribute to increase fluvial connectivity, allowing fish to move freely (Branco et al. 2014). Hydrologic connectivity must be carefully managed, within and beyond FPA’s boundaries (Pringle 2001) and any effort to manage and/or restore it should be directed to where they are most effective (Saunders et al. 2002). Considering more than 90% of a river’s flow derives from headwaters, the main actions, especially when resources are limited, should focus on these areas (Imbert and Stanford 1996).
Introduction of non-native species (NNS)
Biological invasions in rivers have been increasing, especially in the last 60 years (Nunes et al. 2015) and are expected to become even more frequent, due to the increased human pressure on natural habitats, climate change and expansion of international trade (Genovesi and Monaco 2014; Zamora-Marín et al. 2023).
Nowadays, NNS can be introduced either purposely (e.g., agriculture, aquaculture, pet trade), or accidentally (e.g., ballast water, bait buckets, fouling or concealment in transported goods) (Mack 2003). Impacts include changes to ecosystem services and processes, changes in biodiversity (e.g., behavioural shifts, restructured food webs) (Carbonell et al. 2017), increased biological homogenization (Kortz and Magurran 2019) and negative effects on local economies, man made structures and livelihoods (Shackleton et al. 2014). Within PA, NNS’ richness patterns are usually linked to the surrounding environment’s characteristics, such as road networks, land use and human population density, as well as PA’s surface area and protection status (Foxcroft et al. 2011; Gallardo et al. 2017; Moustakas et al. 2018). Accordingly, Holenstein et al. (2021) and Genovesi and Monaco (2014) strongly recommend that the focus of NNS management be extended beyond PA boundaries. The best way to address NNS requires updated and detailed information in order to prevent their establishment, regulating activities associated with their introduction and promoting dispersion barriers (Saunders et al. 2002; Zamora-Marín et al. 2023). These barriers, preferably of natural origin, can include the establishment of buffer zones around PA (Foxcroft et al. 2011) or, for instance, the maintenance of natural flows, which continue to allow endemic species’ migration, simultaneously preventing NNS invasion (Moyle and Yoshiyama 1994; Marchetti and Moyle 2001). A good example of effective prevention efforts is the ‘Check, clean, dry: didymo controls’ programme of the Fiordland National Park (New Zealand), aimed at preventing the establishment of the invasive freshwater diatom (microalgae) Didymosphenia geminata (didymo), by encouraging visitors to check, clean and dry all gear before leaving the lake edge and moving into lake tributaries or other waterways (Biosecurity New Zealand 2023).
When NNS are already present, but not fully established, complete eradication is preferable and more cost-effective than long-term control (Zavaleta et al. 2001), although it should only be carried out where ecologically feasible and when there is financial and political support to be effectively completed (IUCN 2000). When NNS are established, an active, focused and adaptative management is necessary, not only to reduce their negative effects, but also to prevent their further dispersion (Saunders et al. 2002). Eradication and containment measures vary according to the target species and respective life cycles, but can include, among others, traps, baits, mechanical cleaning actions, selective removal, establishment of physical barriers, chemical treatments and biological control (Anastácio et al. 2019). Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association, for example, conducted a 3 year project to control purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), an abundant NNS on the Pawcatuck River, using Galerucella spp. beetles, which resulted in a progressive decrease of L. salicaria and in increased abundance of native species (e.g., Eupatorium perfoliatum) (WPWA 2013).
Climate change
Although PA play an important role in species and ecosystem conservation, Finlayson and Pittock (2018) consider that managing them in the same way, focusing on static reference conditions, for decades to come, may have adverse consequences, not only but also because climate change induces alterations in the natural ecosystems. As Mascia and Pailler (2011) point out, PA may fail if they no longer contain the elements they were designed to protect. Climate change will continue to increase the pressure on rivers through alterations in flow patterns and intermittency, modifications in the frequency, magnitude and timing of droughts or floods, as well as changes to water quality and biological communities (Palmer et al. 2008). Our review revealed two publications (Finlayson et al. 2017; Biggs et al. 2012) that provided a set of general principles to help guide PA management within the context of climate change and that could also be adopted for FPA. These principles include (i) definition of objectives that accommodate and compensate for climate change, (ii) establishment of flexible governance and adaptive co-management frameworks, (iii) selection of easily reversed, no-regret adaptations, (iv) implementation of long-term management strategies that identify triggers for new actions, (v) development of monitoring campaigns to evaluate management strategies, (vi) promotion of diverse, redundant and well connected systems and (vii) management of slow variables. Engaging partners and knowledge holders, supporting staff progress, committing to ongoing knowledge development, and thinking at broader scales are also relevant actions to consider (Gross et al. 2016). Within established FPA there are several adaptations that can improve their resilience to climate change, namely (i) the integration into the protected perimeter of parts of the fluvial landscape that may be more resilient to climate change and/or which can provide refugia and ecological complexity (Turak et al. 2011); (ii) the conservation of essential areas to secure the viability and resilience of the FPA (e.g., riparian zones, upstream headwaters) (Major et al. 2020) and (iii) the protection of larger and environmentally heterogeneous areas (Heino et al. 2009). Additionally, on FPA encompassing storage dams able to discharge the right amount of water, at the right temperature, e-flows’ management can also be an important intervention (Olden and Naiman 2010). On the other hand, free flowing rivers should become conservation priorities (Pittock and Finlayson 2011), since they increase the resilience of these ecosystems by providing open pathways for species movement to suitable habitats, in response to climate change (Palmer et al. 2008; Groves et al. 2012).
Conclusions
Through a comprehensive literature review of 173 research papers and other publications, we have compared the condition of riverine ecosystems within terrestrial PA and in dedicated FPA, exploring the advantages and constraints of the latter. Despite the mixed results, it’s safe to say that terrestrial PA confer some degree of protection to riverine ecosystems contained within their boundaries. However, to rely on the protection provided by these PA alone, is inadequate and insufficient, considering the increasing amount of threats acting upon freshwater ecosystems. Moreso many of the reviewed cases reported significant representation gaps in terrestrial PA towards riverine biodiversity. In comparison, dedicated FPA have a higher potential, as long as adequately managed, to provide enhanced protection, considering they are specifically designed for these ecosystems. Accordingly, we have explored, through our literature review, some of the most relevant factors for the successful implementation and management of these dedicated PA. However, attribution of statutory protection represents the starting point and only dedicated focus on monitoring aquatic ecosystem’s integrity, using reliable indicators, will secure an effective management that meets the intended objectives. Oddly, our literature review resulted in a much higher number of studies addressing the effectiveness of non dedicated terrestrial PA towards riverine ecosystems, than studies addressing the effectiveness of dedicated FPA towards the ecosystems they were designed to protect. This discrepancy has already been reported by other authors (e.g., Loury and Ainsley 2020) and can be due to the fact that terrestrial PA are much more abundant and widespread than FPA and also to the general lack of data, resources and guidelines. Besides this gap, there are other challenges and hindrances to overcome, namely in what concerns governance issues, requiring as Vance-Borland et al. (2008) highlight, the development of common purpose, policy integration, and strategy alignment across different disciplinary backgrounds, overlapping mandates, and potentially conflicting policy contexts. Nonetheless, if correctly managed, the long-term benefits clearly outweigh the short-term costs and obstacles.
FPA cannot, however, be the sole strategy for tackling biodiversity loss in fluvial ecosystems. Instead, it should be used in complementarity with other strategies, in order to maximize its outcomes and effectively contribute to the preservation of riverine ecosystems for both present and future generations.
Data availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Abell R, Allan JD, Lehner B (2007) Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters. Biol Conserv 134(1):48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.017
Abell R, Thieme ML, Revenga C, Bryer M, Kottelat M, Bogutskaya N, Coad B, Mandrak N, Balderas SC, Bussing W (2008) Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 58:403–414. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580507
Abell R, Lehner B, Thieme M, Linke S (2017) Looking beyond the fenceline: assessing protection gaps for the world’s rivers. Conserv Lett 10(4):384–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12312
Abellán P, Sánchez-Fernández D, Velas J, Millán A (2005) Conservation of freshwater biodiversity: a comparison of different area selection methods. Biodivers Conserv 14:3457–3474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-0550-1
Abellán P, Sánchez-Fernández D, Velasco J, Millán A (2007) Effectiveness of protected area networks in representing freshwater biodiversity: the case of a Mediterranean river basin (south-eastern Spain). Aquat Conserv 17:361–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.778
Abraham RK, Kelkar N (2012) Do terrestrial protected areas conserve freshwater fish diversity? Results from the Western Ghats of India. Oryx 46:544–553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605311000937
Acreman M, Hughes KA, Arthington AH, Tickner D, Dueñas MA (2019) Protected areas and freshwater biodiversity: a novel systematic review distils eight lessons for effective conservation. Conserv Lett 13:e12684. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12684
Adams VM, Setterfield SA, Douglas MM, Kennard MJ, Ferdinands K (2015) Measuring benefits of protected area management: trends across realms and research gaps for freshwater systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 370:20140274. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0274
Allan JD, Abell R, Hogan Z, Revenga C, Taylor BW, Welcomme RL, Winemiller K (2005) Overfishing of inland waters. Bioscience 55(12):1041–1051. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[1041:OOIW]2.0.CO;2
Alvarez-Romero J, Pressey R, Ban N, Vance-Borland K, Willer C, Klein C, Gaines S (2011) Integrated land-sea conservation planning: the missing links. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42:381–409. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144702
Anastácio PM, Ribeiro F, Capinha C, Banha F, Gama M, Felipe AF, Rebelo R, Sousa R et al (2019) Non-native freshwater fauna in Portugal: a review. Sci Total Environ 650:1923–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.251
Arthington AH, Bhaduri A, Bunn SE, Jackson SE, Tharme RE et al (2018) The Brisbane declaration and global action agenda on environmental flows. Front Environ Sci 6:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00045
Atkore VM, Sivakumar K, Johnsingh AJT (2011) Patterns of diversity and conservation status of freshwater fishes in the tributaries of River Ramganga in the Shiwaliks of the Western Himalaya. Curr Sci 100(5):731–736
Azevedo-Santos VM, Frederico RG, Fagundes CK, Pompeu PS, Pelicice FM, Padial AA, Nogueira MG et al (2018) Protected areas: a focus on Brazilian freshwater biodiversity. Divers Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12871
Baird IG, Flaherty MS (2005) Mekong River fish conservation zones in southern Laos: assessing effectiveness using local ecological knowledge. Environ Manage 36:439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-3093-7
Balmford A, Green JMH, Anderson M, Beresford J, Huang C, Naidoo R, Walpole M, Manica A (2015) Walk on the wild side: estimating de global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol 13(2):e1002074. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074
Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K et al (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109769
Biggs R, Schluter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S et al (2012) Towards principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836
Biosecurity New Zealand. Check, clean, dry—information for tramplers. www.biosecurity.govt.nz. Accessed 3 Apr 2023
Blauwkamp JM, Longo PJ (2002) Watering the plains: political dynamics of river preservation in Canada and the United States. Gt Plains Res 12(2):353–368
BMT, WBM (2010) Ecological character description for Kakadu national park Ramsar site. Prepared for the Australian government department of sustainability, environment, water, population and communities
Boon PJ (2000) The development of integrated methods for assessing river conservation value. Hydrobiologia 422(423):413–428. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017054908152
Borrini-Feyerabend G, Dudley N, Jaeger T, Lassen B, Broome NP, Phillips A, Sandwith T (2013) Governance of protected areas: from understanding to action. Best practice protected area guidelines series. IUCN, Gland
Branco P, Segurado P, Santos JM, Ferreira MT (2014) Prioritizing barrier removal to improve functional connectivity of rivers. J Appl Ecol 51:1197–1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12317
Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30:492–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0
Canadian Heritage Rivers Board (2002) The Canadian Heritage Rivers System annual report, 2001–2002
Carbonell JA, Velasco J, Millán A, Green AJ, Coccia C, Guareschi S, Gutiérrez-Cánovas C (2017) Biological invasion modifies the co-occurrence patterns of insects along a stress gradient. Funct Ecol 31:1957–1968. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12884
Chessman BC (2013) Do protected areas benefit freshwater species? A broad-scale assessment for fish in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. J Appl Ecol 50:969–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12104
Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The ‘Anthropocene.’ Global Change Newslett 41:17–18
Darwall W, Holland RA, Smith KG, Allen D et al (2011) Implications of bias in conservation research and investment for freshwater species. Conserv Lett 4:474–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00202.x
Darwall W, Carrizo S, Numa C, Barrios V, Freyhof J, Smith K (2014) Freshwater key biodiversity areas in the Mediterranean Basin Hotspot: Informing species conservation and development planning in freshwater ecosystems. IUCN, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.SSC-OP.52.en
Decker E, Linke S, Hermoso V, Geist J (2017) Incorporating ecological functions in conservation decision making. Ecol Evol 7:8273–8281. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3353
Di Marco M, Chapman S, Althor G, Kearney S, Besacon C, Butt N, Maina JM, Possingham HP, von Bieberstein KR, Venter O, Watson JEM (2017) Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. GECCO 10:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008
Dias-Silva K, Vieira TB, Moreira FFF, Juen L, Hamada N (2021) Protected areas are not effective for the conservation of freshwater insects in Brazil. Sci Rep 11:21247. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00700-0
Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio E, Ngo H, Agard J, Arneth A et al (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100
Dirzo R, Raven PH (2003) Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:137–167. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105532
Donaldson MR, Burnett NJ, Braun DC, Suski CD, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Kerr JT (2016) Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. Facets 1:105–113. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-00
Dorji T, Sheldon F, Linke S (2020) Fulfilling Nature Needs Half through terrestrial-focused protected areas and thei adequacy for freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity protection: a case from Bhutan. J Nat Conserv 58:125894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125894
Driver A, Nel JL, Snaddon K, Murray K, Roux DJ, Hill L, Swartz ER, Manuel J, Funke N (2011) Implementation manual for freshwater ecosystem priority areas. Draft Rep Water Res Comm. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3427.7365
Dudgeon D (2000) The ecology of tropical Asian rivers and streams in relation to biodiversity conservation. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 31(1):239–263. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.239
Dudgeon D (2019) Multiple threats imperil freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr 29(19):R960–R967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.08.002
Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO et al (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81(2):163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
Dudley N, Parish J (2006) Closing the gap: creating ecologically representative protected area systems. CBD technical series 24. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Dudley N, Stolton S (2008) Defining protected areas: an international conference in Almeria. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN, Spain
Dudley N, Bignoli DJ, Kettunen M (2018) What is different about freshwater protected areas? In: Finlayson CM, Arthington AH, Pittock J (eds) Freshwater ecosystems in protected areas: Conservation and management. Routledge, New York, pp 70–83
Essex Region Conservation Authority (2021) Detroit River Canadian Heritage river system ten-year monitoring report 2011–2021. Essex, Ontario
European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment (2022) Biodiversity strategy for 2030: barrier removal for river restoration. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Feio MJ, Hughes RM, Serra SRQ, Nichols SJ, Kefford BJ et al (2022a) Fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages reveal extensive degradation of the world’s rivers. Glob Chang Biol 29(2):355–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16439
Feio MJ, Mantas AI, Serra SRQ, Calapez AR, Almeida SFP, Sales MC, Montenegro M, Moreira F (2022b) Effect of environmental education on the knowledge of aquatic ecosystems and reconnection with nature in early childhood. PLoS 17:e0266776. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776
Filipe AF, Marques TA, Seabra S, Tiago P, Ribeiro F, Moreira da Costa L, Cowx IG, Collares-Pereira MJ (2004) Selection of priority areas for fish conservation in Guadiana River Basin, Iberian Peninsula. Conserv Biol 18:189–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00620.x
Finlayson CM, Pittock J (2018) Climate change and the management of freshwater protected areas. In: Finlayson CM, Arthington AH, Pittock J (eds) Freshwater ecosystems in protected areas: conservation and management. Routledge, New York, pp 242–255
Finlayson CM, Capon SJ, Rissik D, Pittock J, Fisk G, Davidson NC et al (2017) Policy considerations for managing wetlands under a changing climate. Mar Freshw Res 68(10):1803–1815. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF16244
Foxcroft LC, Jarosik V, Pysek P, Richardson DM, Rouget M (2011) Protected-area boundaries as filters of plant invasions. Conserv Biol 25(2):400–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01617.x
Fraindová K, Matousková M, Kliment Z, Vlach V (2022) Changes and dynamics of headwaters chemistry on the boundary of nature protected areas: example of upper Blanice river catchment, Czechia. Geografie. https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie.2022.001
Frank DM, Sarkar S (2010) Group decisions in biodiversity conservation: implications from game theory. PLoS 5(5):e10688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010688
Freyhof J, Bergner L, Ford M (2020) Threatened freshwater fishes of the mediterranean basin biodiversity hotspot: distribution, extinction risk and the impact of hydropower. Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin
Gallardo B, Aldridge D, González-Moreno P, Pergl J et al (2017) Protected areas offer refuge from invasive species spreading under climate change. Glob Chang Biol 23(12):5331–5343. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13798
Garcia-Llorente M, Harrison PA, Berry P, Palomo I et al (2016) What can conservation strategies learn from the ecosystem services approach? Insights from ecosystem assessments in two Spanish protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 27:1575–1597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1152-4
Genovesi P, Monaco A (2014) European guidelines on protected areas and invasive alien species. IUCN, Council of Europe, FR, IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), Invasive Species Specialist Group, Regional Parks Agency—Lazio Region, IT
Grill G, Lehner B, Thieme M, Geenen B, Tickner D, Antonelli F et al (2019) Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569:215–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9
Gross JE, Woodley S, Welling LA, Watson J (eds) (2016) Adapting to climate change: guidance for protected area managers and planners. Best practice protected area guidelines series No. 24. IUCN, Gland
Groves CR et al (2012) Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation planning. Biodivers Conserv 21:1651–1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0269-3
Gupta N, Sivakumar K, Mathur VB, Chadwick MA (2015) Terrestrial protected areas and managed reaches conserve threatened freshwater fish in Uttarakhand, India. Parks 21(1):89–101. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-21-1NG.en
Haak AL, Williams JE (2012) Spreading the risk: Native trout management in a warmer and less certain future. N Am J Fish Manag 32:387–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2012.678963
Harrison I, Abell R, Darwall W, Thieme ML, Tickner D, Timboe I (2018) The freshwater biodiversity crisis. Science 362:1369. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav9242
Heino J, Virkkala R, Toivonen H (2009) Climate change and freshwater biodiversity: detected patterns, future trends and adaptations in northern regions. Biol Rev 84:39–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00060.x
Herbert ME, McIntyre PB, Doran P, Allan JD, Abell R (2010) Terrestrial reserve networks do not adequately represent aquatic ecosystems. Conserv Biol 24:1002–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01460.x
Hermoso V, Kennard MJ, Linke S (2012) Integrating multidirectional connectivity requirements in systematic conservation planning for freshwater systems. Divers Distrib 18:448–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00879.x
Hermoso V, Ward DP, Kennard MJ (2013) Prioritizing refugia for freshwater biodiversity conservation in highly seasonal ecosystems. Divers Distrib 19:1031–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12082
Hermoso V, Filipe AF, Segurado P, Beja P (2016) Catchment zoning to unlock freshwater conservation opportunities in the Iberian Peninsula. Divers Distrib 22:960–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12454
Holenstein K, Simonson WD, Smith KG, Blackburn TM, Charpentier A (2021) Non-native species surrounding protected areas influence the community of non-native species within them. Front Ecol Evol 8:625137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.625137
Humphries P, Winemiller KO (2009) Historical impacts on river fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. Bioscience 59(8):673–684. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.9
Imbert JB, Stanford JA (1996) An ecological study of a regulated prairie stream in western Montana. Regul Rivers Res Manage 12:597–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199611)12:6%3c597::AID-RRR417%3e3.0.CO;2-R
IUCN (1993) Parks for life: report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and protected areas. IUCN, Gland
IUCN (1994) Recommendation 19.38—targets for protected areas systems. 19th session of the IUCN general assembly. IUCN, Buenos Aires
IUCN (2000) Guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by Alien invasive species. IUCN, Gland
IUCN (2014) The promise of Sydney: innovative approaches for change. A strategy of innovative approaches and recommendations to reach conservation goals in the next decade. Sidney, Australia. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-20-1.TS.en
IUCN, WCPA (2017) IUCN greenlist of protected and conserved areas: standard, Version 1.1. IUCN, Gland
IUCN (2020) World conservation congress—resolution WCC-2020-Res-008 on protecting rivers and their associated ecosystems as corridors in a changing climate. IUCN, Marseille
Juffe-Bignoli D, Burgess ND, Bingham H, Belle EMS et al (2014) Protected planet report 2014. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
Keith J, Jakus P, Larsen J (2008) Impacts of Wild and scenic river designation: a report for the Utah governor’s public lands policy coordination office. Utah State University, Utah
Kingsford RT, Nevill J (2005) Scientists urge expansion of freshwater protected areas. Ecol Manag Restor 6(3):161–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2005.00232.x
Kingsford RT, Basset A, Jackson L (2016) Wetlands: conservation’s poor cousins. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw 26:892–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2709
Klein C, Wilson K, Watts M, Stein J, Berry S et al (2009) Incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into continental scale conservation planning. Ecol Appl 19:206–217. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1684.1
Koning AA, Perales KM, Fluet-Chouinard E, McIntyre PB (2020) A network of grassroots reserves protects tropical river fish diversity. Nature 588(7839):631–635. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2944-y
Kortz AR, Magurran AE (2019) Increases in local richness (α-diversity) following invasion are offset by biotic homogenization in a biodiversity hotspot. Biol Lett 15:20190133. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0133
Kotzé P (2012) The river guardians of Groot Marico. Water Wheel 11:19–23
Kroner REG, Qin S, Cook CN, Krithivasan R, Pack SM, Bonilla OD et al (2019) The uncertain future of protected lands and waters. Science 364:881–886. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau5525
Kwik JT, Yeo DC (2015) Differences in fish assemblages in protected and non-protected freshwater streams in a tropical urbanized country. Hydrobiologia 762(1):143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2344-8
Leal CG, Lennox GD, Ferraz SFB, Ferreira J, Gardner TA, Thomson JR et al (2020) Integrated terrestrial-freshwater planning doubles conservation of tropical aquatic species. Science 370:117–121. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7580
Li HW, Currens K, Bottom D, Clarke S, Dambacher J, Frissell C et al (1995) Safe havens: refuges and evolutionary significant units. Am Fish Soc Symp 17:371–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00686.x
Linke S, Pressey RL, Bailey RC, Norris RH (2007) Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re-visited. Freshw Biol 52:918–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01690.x
Linke S, Norris RH, Pressey RL (2008) Irreplaceability of river networks: towards catchment-based conservation planning. J Appl Ecol 45:1486–1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01520.x
Linke S, Turak E, Nel J (2011) Freshwater conservation planning: the case for systematic approaches. Freshw Biol 56:6–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02456.x
Loury EK, Ainsley SM (2020) Identifying indicators to evaluate community-managed freshwater protected areas in the lower Mekong Basin: a review of marine and freshwater examples. Water 12:3530. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123530
Maceda-Veiga A, Baselga A, Sousa R, Vilà M, Doadrio I, Sostoa A (2017) Fine-scale determinants of conservation value of river reaches in a hotspot of native and non-native species diversity. Sci Total Environ 574:455–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.097
Mack RN (2003) Global plant dispersal, naturalization, and invasion: pathways, modes, and circumstances. In: Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (eds) Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, pp 3–30
Majdi N, de Necker L, Fourie H, Loggenberg A, Netherlands EC, Bunte-Tschikin J, Traunspurger W, du Preez GC (2022) Diversity and distribution of benthic invertebrates dwelling rivers of the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Koedoe 64(1):a1702. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v64i1.1702
Major J, Perry D, Aslan C, McManamy R (2020) Identifying gaps in protected areas to expand integrated riverine ecosystem conservation. Conserv Sci Pract 3:e470. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.470
Mancini L, Formichetti P, Anselmo A, Tancioni L, Marchini S, Sorace A (2005) Biological quality of running waters in protected areas: the influence of size and land use. Biodivers Conserv 14:351–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-5355-8
Marchetti MP, Moyle PB (2001) Effects of flow regime and habitat structure on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecol Appl 11:530–539. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0530:EOFROF]2.0.CO;2
Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251
Margules CR, Sarkar S (2007) Systematic conservation planning: ecology, biology and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27:309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02704962
Mascia M, Pailler S (2011) Protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv Lett 4:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00147.x
Mauerhofer V, Kim RE, Stevens C (2015) When implementation works: a comparison of Ramsar convention implementation in different continents. Environ Sci Policy 51:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.016
McCann KS, Gellner G, McMeans BC, Deenik T, Holtgrieve G et al (2016) Food webs and the sustainability of indiscriminate fisheries. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 73:656–665. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0044
McGarvey DJ, Brown AL, Chen EB, Viverette CB, Tuley PA et al (2021) Do fishes enjoy the view? A MaxEnt assessment of fish habitat suitability within scenic rivers. Biol Conserv 263:109357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109357
Miranda R, Pino-del-Carpio A (2016) Analysing freshwater fish biodiversity records and respective conservation areas in Spain. J Appl Ichthyol 32:240–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13027
Miyahira IC, Mansur MCD, de Lacerda LEM, Gonçalves ICB, Sant’Anna GG, dos Santos SB (2023) Protected areas and native freshwater bivalves are not in the same place in southeast Brazil. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw 33(1):102–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3904
Moilanen A, Leathwick J, Elith J (2008) A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshw Biol 53:577–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01906.x
Moir K, Thieme M, Opperman J (2016) Securing A future that flows: case studies of protection mechanisms for rivers. World Wildlife Fund and the Nature Conservancy, Washington
Mollmann V, Santos S, Fernandes G, Mossolin E, Dalosto M et al (2022) Terrestrial protected areas do not fully shield their streams from exogenous stressors. Environ Conserv 49(4):215–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892922000261
Mouchlianitis FA (2023) Dam removal progress 2022. World Fish Migration Foundation
Moustakas A, Voutsela A, Katsanevakis S (2018) Sampling alien species inside and outside protected areas: does it matter? Sci Total Environ 625:194–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.198
Moyle PB, Yoshiyama RM (1994) Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: a five tiered approach. Fisheries 19:6–18. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1994)019%3c0006:POABIC%3e2.0.CO;2
Nel JL, Roux DJ, Maree G, Kleynhans CJ, Moolman J, Reyers B, Rouget M, Cowling RM (2007) Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas: a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems. Divers Distrib 13:341–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00308.x
Nel JL, Belinda R, Roux DJ, Cowling RM (2009) Expanding protected areas beyond their terrestrial confort zone: Identifying spacial options for river conservation. Biol Conserv 142:1605–1616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.031
Nel JL, Driver A, Swartz E (2011a) National biodiversity assessment 2011: freshwater component. CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment, Stellenbosch
Nel JL, Driver A, Strydom W, Maherry A, Petersen C et al (2011b) Atlas of freshwater ecosystem priority areas in South Africa: maps to support sustainable development of water resources. Water Research Commission, South Africa
Nevill J, Phillips N (Eds) (2004) The Australian Freshwater Protected Area Resource book: the policy background, role and importance of protected areas for Australian inland aquatic ecosystems
Nogueira JG, Teixeira A, Lopes-Lima M, Varandas S, Sousa R (2021) Assessment of terrestrial protected areas for the conservation of freshwater biodiversity. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw 31:520–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3502
Nunes AL, Tricarico E, Panov VE, Cardoso AC, Katsanevakis S (2015) Pathways and gateways of freshwater invasions in Europe. Aquat Invasions 10(4):359–370. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2015.10.4.01
O’Brien GC, Smit NJ, Wepener V (2014) Conservation of fishes in the Elands River, Mpumalanga, South Africa: past, present and future. Koedoe 56(1):a1118. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v56i1.1118
Olden JD, Naiman RJ (2010) Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental flows assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystems integrity. Freshw Biol 55:86–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02179.x
Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Powell GVN, Wikramanayake D (2002) Conservation biology for the biodiversity in crisis. Conserv Biol 16:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01612.x
Palmer MA, Lierman CAR, Nilsson C, Florke M, Alcamo J, Lake PS, Bond N (2008) Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Front Ecol Environ 6(2):81–89. https://doi.org/10.1890/060148
Parks Australia (2016) Kakadu national park management plan 2016–2026: a living cultural landscape. Kakadu National Park Board of Management, Canberra
Parks Canada (2011) Athabasca River, Canadian Heritage river system ten-year monitoring report 2011–2020. Parks Canada, Jasper
Parr CL, Woinarsky JCZ, Pienaar DJ (2009) Cornerstones of biodiversity conservation? Comparing the management effectiveness of Kruger and Kakadu National Parks, two key savanna reserves. Biodiv Conserv 18:3643–3662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9669-4
Paxton B, Dobinson L, Kleynhans M, Howard G (2016) Developing an elementary tool for ecological reserve monitoring in South Africa’s freshwater ecosystem priority areas (FEPAs): A pilot study in the Koue Bokkeveld. Report to the Water Research Commision
Paz A, Moreno P, Rocha L, Callisto M (2008) Effectiveness of protected areas for the conservation of water quality and freshwater biodiversity in reference sub-basins in das Velhas River. Neotropical Biol Conserv 3(3):149–158. https://doi.org/10.4013/nbc.20083.06
Perry D (2017) Reframing the wild and scenic rivers act, ecosystem-based resilience and adaptation. Int J Wilderness 23(2):41–48
Perry D (2021) Legible rivers, resilient rivers: lessons for climate adaptation policy from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In: Cassin J, Matthews JH, Gunn EL (eds) Nature-based solutions and water security: an agenda for the 21st century. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Petersen CR, Deventer H, Smith-Adao L, Nel JL (2022) Incorporating free-flowing rivers into global biodiversity targets: prioritization and targeted interventions to maintain ecological integrity. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw 33:115–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3898
Pittock J, Finlayson CM (2011) Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin: freshwater ecosystem conservation options in an era of climate change. Mar Freshw Res 62:232–243. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF09319
Pittock J, Baumgartner L, Finlayson CM, Thieme JD, Forbes JP, Silva LG, Arthington AH (2018) Managing threats to freshwater systems within protected areas. In: Finlayson CM, Arthington AH, Pittock J (eds) Freshwater ecosystems in protected areas conservation and management. Routledge, New York, pp 84–109
Poff NL (1997) Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. J North Am Benthol Soc 16:391–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468026
Polunin NVC (2001) Marine protected areas, fish and fisheries. In: Hart B, Reynolds JC (eds) Handbook of fish and fisheries. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 293–318
Pomeroy RS, Watson LM, Parks JE, Cid GA (2005) How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manag 48:485–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.05.004
Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR, Vane-Wright RI, Williams PH (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Tree 8(4):124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90023-I
Pringle CM (2001) Hydrologic connectivity and the management of biological reserves: a global perspective. Ecol Appl 11:981–998. https://doi.org/10.2307/3061006
Pringle RM (2017) Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodiversity. Nature 546:91–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22902
Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, Eliason EJ, Gell PA, Johnson PT et al (2019) Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol Rev 94:849–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480
Restello RM, Battistoni D, Sobczak JR, Valduga AT, Zackrzevski SBB, Zanin EM, Decian VS, Hepp LU (2020) Effectiveness of protected areas for the conservation of aquatic invertebrates: a study-case in southern Brazil. Acta Limnol Bras 32:e5. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-975X9416
Rivaes RP, Feio MJ, Almeida SFP, Calapez AR, Mortágua A, Gebler D, Lozanovska I, Aguiar FC (2022) River ecosystem endangerment from climate change-driven regulated flow regimes. Sci Total Environ 818:151857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151857
Rodríguez-Olarte D, Amaro A, Coronel J, Taphorn DC (2006) Integrity of fluvial fish communities is subject to environmental gradients in mountain streams, Sierra de Aroa, north Caribbean coast, Venezuela. Neotrop Ichthyol 4(3):319–328. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252006000300003
Rothlisberger JD, Scalley TH, Thurow RF (2017) The role of wild and scenic rivers in the conservation of aquatic biodiversity. Int J Wilderness 32(2):49–72
Sarkar UK, Pathak AK, Tyagi LK, Srivastata SM, Singh SP, Dubey VK (2013) Biodiversity of freshwater fish of a protected river in India: comparison with unprotected habitat. Rev Biol Trop 61(1):161–172. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v61i1.10942
Saunders DL, Meeuwig JJ, Vincent ACJ (2002) Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Conserv Biol 16:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99562.x
Shackleton RT, Le Maitre DC, Pasiecznik NM, Richardson DM (2014) Prosopis: a global assessment of the biogeography, benefits, impacts and management of one of the world’s worst woody invasive plant taxa. AoB Plants. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plu027
Spence MD (1999) Dispossessing the wilderness: Indian removal and the making of National Parks. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Staponites LR, Simon OP, Barták V, Bílý M (2022) Management effectiveness in a freshwater protected area: long-term water quality response to catchment-scale land use changes. Ecol Indic 144:109438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109438
The Sudbury, Assabet and Concord (SuAsCo) Stewardship Council (2018) Wild and Scenic River: the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Wild and Scenic River, Stories and Successes 1999–2018
Suski CD, Cooke SJ (2007) Conservation of aquatic resources through the use of freshwater protected areas: opportunities and challenges. Biodiv Conserv 16:2015–2029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9060-7
Thieme M, Rudulph J, Higgins J, Takats JA (2012) Protected areas and freshwater conservation: a survey of protected area managers in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins, USA. J Environ Manage 109:189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.021
Thurow RF (2015) Salmon, landscapes, and functioning ecosystems: a wilderness lesson in mutual dependency. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Wag Tales-Newsletter of the Chief’s Wilderness Advisory Group
Tickner D, Opperman JJ, Abell R, Acreman M, Arthington AH, Bunn SE et al (2020) Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss: an emergency recovery plan. Bioscience 70(4):330–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa002
Turak E, Marchant R, Barmuta LA, Davis J, Choy S, Metzeling L (2011) River conservation in a changing world: invertebrate diversity and spatial prioritisation in south-eastern coastal Australia. Mar Freshw Res 62(3):300–311. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF09297
United Nations (2010) Convention on biological diversity—strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020
United Nations (2018) World water development report, nature-based solutions for water
United Nations (2022) Convention on biological diversity—Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework 2030–2050
van Rees CB, Waylen KA, Schmidt-Kloiber A, Thackeray SJ, Kalinkat G, Martens K et al (2020) Safeguarding freshwater life beyond 2020: recommendations for the new global biodiversity framework from the European experience. Conserv Lett 14(1):e12771. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12771
Vance-Borland K, Roux D, Nel J, Pressey B (2008) From the mountains to the sea: where is freshwater conservation in the SCB agenda? Conserv Biol 22(3):505–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00964.x
Water Resources Agency, Institute for Public Administration, University of Delaware (2016) White Clay Creek state of the watershed report: an update on the health of the White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Watershed in Delaware and Pennsylvania
Williams JE, Williams RN, Thurow RF, Elwell L, Philipp DP et al (2011) Native fish conservation areas: a vision for large-scale conservation of native fish communities. Fisheries 36(6):267–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2011.582398
Wilson KA, Carwardine J, Possingham HP (2009) Setting conservation priorities. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:237–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x
Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association (2013) Biological control for purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Final Report
WWF (2020) Living planet report 2020. In: Almond REA, Grooten M, Petersen T (eds) Bending the curve of biodiversity loss. WWF, Gland
WWF (2022) Living planet report 2022. In: Almond REA, Grooten M, Juffe Bignoli D, Petersen T (eds) Building a nature positive society. WWF, Gland
Xie X, Zhang H, Wang C, Wu J, Wei Q, Du H, Li J, Ye H (2019) Are river protected areas sufficient for fish conservation? Implications from large-scale hydroacoustic surveys in the middle reach of the Yangtze River. BMC Ecol 19:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-019-0258-4
Yousefi M, Naderloo R, Keikhosravi A (2022) Freshwater crabs of the near east: increased extinction risk from climate change and underrepresented within protected areas. GECCO 38:e02266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02266
Zamora-Marín JM, Ruiz-Navarro A, Oficialdegui FJ, Anastácio PM, Miranda R, García-Murillo P, Cobo F, Ribeiro F, Gallardo B, García-Berthou E et al (2023) A multi-taxa assessment of aquatic non-indigenous species introduced into Iberian freshwater and transitional waters. NeoBiota 89:17–44. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.89.105994
Zavaleta ES, Hobbs RJ, Mooney HA (2001) Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol Evol 16(8):454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02194-2
Funding
Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). This study had the support of national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I. P (FCT), under the projects UIDB/04292/2020, UIDP/04292/2020, granted to MARE, LA/P/0069/2020, granted to the Associate Laboratory ARNET, and (UID/GEO/04035/2019) granted to GeoBioTec and a Principal Investigator CEEC contract granted to MJF. https://doi.org/10.54499/2021.02942.CEECIND/CP1656/CT0005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HILV: Conceptualization, Literature Search, Data Analysis, Writing—Original draft preparation. MJF: Conceptualization, Writing—Review and Editing, Supervision. SFPA: Conceptualization, Writing—Review and Editing, Supervision. All authors commented on the manuscript and approved its final submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Communicated by David Hawksworth.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Valentim, H.I.L., Feio, M.J. & Almeida, S.F.P. Fluvial protected areas as a strategy to preserve riverine ecosystems—a review. Biodivers Conserv 33, 439–462 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02774-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02774-w